Russian Foreign Policy

[Duke of Marmalade]

Ah, yes - we should trust them! Give them free license and don't hold them to account. Brilliant Duke. And you say this and you still have no notion at what point Putin decided to invade.

So you think it reduces Putin's guilt if he was only intending to throw his weight around but took the hump at Western goading? Unbelievable moral compass there.

You think if a war could have been avoided and wasn't, that's reasonable?

Givuz a break! Apologies for Godwin's Law but WWII would have been avoided if only they kept appeasing the Fuhrer.

I think you've got this the wrong way round. The question I asked you was where did Greenwald say he agreed with Belarus - as you claimed?

He believes this situation has come about because the Democrats are seeking revenge for the 2016 election result. In conscience he would be bound to support the Russian special mission along with Belarus, NK, Eritrea and Syria. But you are right, these beauts probably made their vote for different reasons than any conspiracy theory around the 2016 election. Anyway, I am taking it that your on the ground experience did not reveal any Nazi activity, but you may correct that if I have it wrong.

Yes, the usual tar and feathering - like his sexual orientation or views on vaccination have anything to do with this. I'd expect nothing less from you Duke.

His sexual orientation is very relevant in the context of the courageous stand they are both taking against Bolsonaro. I was trying to show how open minded I was.

"The first casualty of war is truth"

I believe Greenwald's lies and conspiracy theories pre-date this war.

 

[Firefly]

The deputy mayor of Mariupol, Sergiy Orlov, describes people sheltering in basements trying to survive without food, medicine or a power supply, and drinking melted snow because the water has been cut off. In Chernihiv, March 16, a line of 10 civilians queuing for bread outside a grocery shop were killed by Russian troops.
Ukrainian intelligence reports indiscriminate shelling and targeting of agricultural machinery, fields and grain stores; and civilians are being blocked from leaving besieged towns and cities or killed whilst fleeing. This is a playbook familiar to any monitoring similar starvation crimes in Syria, Yemen, Tigray or South Sudan.

Russia could be guilty of starvation crimes in Ukraine. We must act | Alex de Waal and Catriona Murdoch

The absence, to date, of mass death from hunger doesn’t mean that Russian forces are innocent of the war crime of starvation

www.theguardian.com

Not too difficult to see who the bad guys are in this awful tragedy

 

[odyssey06]

The article that 'I won;t engage with'? I read your article - there is nothing substantive in it in disspelling the claim re. bioweapons labs. And other than that, you're telling me that the WaPo is now a publication that acts on behalf of Russia and that they're 'repeating conspiracy theories' - despite the bulk of their readership having similar views to yourself? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

As regards Greenwald, who said I accept his views without question? I introduced that article of his to add perspective here. And as for conspiracy theories, other than the biolab issue (which in no way can you dismiss summarily like you're trying to do), what other 'conspiracy theory' does he present? He presents his opinion and like yours and everyone elses, there's an inherrent bias in his opinion.

Hold on. You are one peddling conspiracy theories about bioweapons. I have linked to multiple articles debunking them, and your response is they contain nothing substantive!
You have nothing substantive full stop to back up your conspiracy theories Nothing. Nada. Zero. Just rumours and lies.
You introduced an article containing fake news. Do you accept the contents of the article? What parts do you disagree with? What scrutiny did you subject his bioweapons claim to - none it appears, therefore you are peddling his fake news here without scrutiny.
You spread fake news and then look for negatives to be disproved.

 

[odyssey06]

The Americans gave assurrances that there would be no encroachment of NATO to the east after the fall of the Soviet Union. Bush explicitly gave such an assurance. Meanwhile, you think if there were missiles pointed at the US from Mexico, they'd be ok with it? Well we know that they would lose their bloody minds ( Cuban missile crisis ) - and take us to the brink of nuclear war.
Many have been warning that this was an issue - over years. It takes two to tango - but apparently according to all that have posted on this thread, it's much more simple - one party can do no wrong and another can do no right.

Saying there must be a division of blame in all cases is as wrong as saying in all cases only one party in the wrong.

Russia agreed to the expansion of NATO in the NATO-Russia founding treaty.
Where does that text state Ukraine or any other country cannot join NATO?
Russia and Ukraine signed a treaty whereby Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons.
Where does that text state Ukraine cannot join NATO?

Those are not verbal assurances given at a point in time that were overtaken by events. Those were considered signed agreements.
This is all covered in my previous reply and linked article, which you refused to engage with.
Ukraine in NATO doesn't have to mean nuclear weapons there. You know where does have nuclear missiles close to european capitals? Kalingrad. Go figure.

 

[Firefly]

The first sign of progress emerged in peace talks between Ukraine and Russia on Tuesday as a deputy Russian defense minister said Russia would sharply “reduce military activity” near Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, and the northern city of Chernihiv.

Live Updates: As Talks Progress, Russia Says It Will Reduce Attacks in Northern Ukraine

The gains in negotiations came as Ukrainian troops appeared to push back Russian forces around Kyiv. Russia said a meeting between President Vladimir V. Putin and President Volodymyr Zelensky could occur once a draft peace agreement was ready.

www.nytimes.com

Looks promising, of course if you can believe that Russia is sincere. Based on the lies they spread so far, I wouldn't hold my breath

 

[tecate]

You and Greenwald may think that countries should be pawns of the board of colonial powers but the Free World disagrees with you and has done for over 70 years.

You're making an assumption that this is something that I want. It's not - but it's the reality. And it's always been the reality when it comes to dominant powers. Pull up a list of wars and you'll see how many of them have been proxy wars - as is this one.

You've made the same suggestion about Greenwald but I don't see where in his article there's a suggestion that he wants this - although he recognises it as the reality.

It does seem to be the case alright, no more so than in Russia, where you can end up in jail for 15 years for spreading what it described as "fake" information about the military. Of course, "fake" means anything going against the party line. International and local journalists have shut up shop, leaving the poor Russian people with only state-controlled propaganda for their "news".

whataboutism? It's not good enough to give one party a free license without any question or concern because the governance in place relative to the other party is abhorrent.
As regards state controlled media, I agree - RTE should have been disbanded years ago although their patron keeps funding them. There is no such thing as media without bias. That's exactly the point. That Russia doesn't veil that and takes it to an authoritarian extreme doesn't mean that there isn't misinformation elsewhere. Afterall, you did agree with the statement -> 'The first casualty of war is truth'.

So you think it reduces Putin's guilt if he was only intending to throw his weight around but took the hump at Western goading? Unbelievable moral compass there.

I've never commented on Putin's guilt. Time and time again, you and others are trying to suggest that I present here as pro-Putin and pro-Russia - that's not the case. Many commentators suggested that the build up was part of tactics to negotiate agreement. Whatever you think of Putin, it makes complete sense that there would be some attempts for parties to reach consensus.

Givuz a break! Apologies for Godwin's Law but WWII would have been avoided if only they kept appeasing the Fuhrer.

I have no intention of giving you a break. You have no notion of matters being as clearcut as you (and the rest of them here) present them to be. NATO has always been about facing off against Russia. Assurances were given by the Americans that they wouldn't expand eastwards. They lied/chose to disregard that commitment. It's been flagged for years as an issue - it's been discussed for years as an issue. It seems Bidens policy was to continue that expansion - and this is the result.

He believes this situation has come about because the Democrats are seeking revenge for the 2016 election result. In conscience he would be bound to support the Russian special mission along with Belarus, NK, Eritrea and Syria. But you are right, these beauts probably made their vote for different reasons than any conspiracy theory around the 2016 election.

BS. You're twisting what he wrote to meet your own narrative. He never said that he supports Belarus.

His sexual orientation is very relevant in the context of the courageous stand they are both taking against Bolsonaro. I was trying to show how open minded I was.

Someone else may be buying the horsecrap you're selling but I certainly am not. There is no context in which it was relevant to bring that up.

I believe Greenwald's lies and conspiracy theories pre-date this war.

Translation - the questions this guy poses are inconvenient to my beliefs here - let me scavange and come back with whatever dirt I can to discredit him - ah, he's gay - that will probably trigger someones bias.

Not too difficult to see who the bad guys are in this awful tragedy

A couple of things:
1. That atrocities are carried out by one party doesn't mean that we give an automatic free pass to the other party, never holding them to account for their actions.
2. The media that you're all triggered by are pasting this heart-wrenching coverage across all media channels. Where was that in relation to ...
IRAQ
LIbya
Afghanistan

Where are your posts that take the very same stance against the aggressors in those conflicts? (anyone else participating in this discussion can go searching for said posts also).

 

[Firefly]

As regards state controlled media, I agree - RTE should have been disbanded years ago although their patron keeps funding them.

I'm not much of a fan of RTE but are you suggesting it is under anyway near the same level of control as Russian state media?

That Russia doesn't veil that and takes it to an authoritarian extreme doesn't mean that there isn't misinformation elsewhere.

Nobody else is invading another country at the moment and pretending they are going after Nazis!

Afterall, you did agree with the statement -> 'The first casualty of war is truth'.

Lies & restricting the truth, so far from Russia, that I can think of:

Denying it was going to invade Ukraine
Denouncing the United States and its NATO allies for stoking panic and anti-Russian hatred
Denying it is a war with “special military operation” double-speak
Drug-addled neo-Nazis
Genocide
American biological weapons factories
Birds trained to carry pathogens into Russia
Ukrainian forces bombing their own cities
15 year prison sentences for anyone not towing the party line
Facebook, Twitter, TikTok & Instagram has also been severed inside Russia

 

[Firefly]

A couple of things:
1. That atrocities are carried out by one party doesn't mean that we give an automatic free pass to the other party, never holding them to account for their actions.

I agree, but why not start another thread on it?

2. The media that you're all triggered by are pasting this heart-wrenching coverage across all media channels. Where was that in relation to ...

IRAQ
LIbya
Afghanistan

Firstly, this "pasting this heart-wrenching coverage across all media channels" is people being slaughtered by Russia and their homes & cities destroyed.
Secondly, I notice the absense of Syria in your list, which is unusual as it's quite recent

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I've never commented on Putin's guilt. Time and time again, you and others are trying to suggest that I present here as pro-Putin and pro-Russia - that's not the case.

True, apologies. I meant Greenwald. So you are only posting his deranged conspiracy theories to stir up the "echo chamber" as you call it. I won't come all self righteous and accuse you of making a plaything of a deadly serious situation. I suppose I should be glad that you don't identify with his mad cap theories, excepting of course his views on bitcoin.

 

[tecate]

I agree, but why not start another thread on it?

I'm not getting how this all doesn't fit together under the same topic.

Firstly, this "pasting this heart-wrenching coverage across all media channels" is people being slaughtered by Russia and their homes & cities destroyed.
Secondly, I notice the absense of Syria in your list, which is unusual as it's quite recent

You make my point for me. Greenwald made exactly the same point when he stated this:

"the emotions deliberately stoked by the relentless media attention to the horrors of this war — horrors which, contrary to the West's media propaganda, are common to all wars, including its own."

He's right on the money. There is no way in the world that the narrative was this graphic in its portrayal as previous recent wars....yet the horrors were equally as bad.

Secondly, I notice the absense of Syria in your list, which is unusual as it's quite recent

Eureka! It was much better covered. I wonder why! Have a think about it and come back to me.

 

[Firefly]

Time and time again, you and others are trying to suggest that I present here as pro-Putin and pro-Russia - that's not the case.

I thought you only posted on Bitcon & cryptos...where is anyone "time and time again" try to suggest that you are pro-Russia????

 

[tecate]

I'm not much of a fan of RTE but are you suggesting it is under anyway near the same level of control as Russian state media?

I'm not. What I am doing is going out of my way to get it across to you that bias exists in all media - and that bias will go up the way if said media is under the direct control of someone or beholden to them financially in order to exist.

Lies & restricting the truth, so far from Russia, that I can think of:

Yes, and the inferrence here is that we don't need to consider this any further - give the US free license to do whatever they want, disregard what they might have stoked back in 2014, disregard their expansionist policies via NATO, disregard Hunter Biden's biolabs, disregard everything and lose all ability to look at this thing objectively. That seems to me to be what everyone is going on with here.

So you are only posting his deranged conspiracy theories to stir up the "echo chamber" as you call it. I won't come all self righteous and accuse you of making a plaything of a deadly serious situation. I suppose I should be glad that you don't identify with his mad cap theories, excepting of course his views on bitcoin.

I'll ignore the unproven allegations against Greenwald. As regards 'stirring up' the echo chamber, I guess I'm not the brightest spark. In my innocence I thought that another perspective would be welcomed here. I should have known better.

 

[tecate]

I thought you only posted on Bitcon & cryptos...where is anyone "time and time again" try to suggest that you are pro-Russia????

Time and time again within this thread - post after post.

 

[odyssey06]

...

Firstly, I asked you to comment on the WaPo article that found that the US public was being lied to about this specific issue. That's now verified after months and months of lies. Address that!
As regards your 'debunking' article - it's no different than a post from you saying "there are no biolabs". What else did it provide? By contrast, the WaPo article confirms evidence of deceit in relation to the issue.
YOU started with the 'fake news' claims. The WaPo article states that it - and other mainstream media have to take responsibility for disinformation. Respond to that please.


Firstly, nobody said that there 'must' be a division of blame - but more often than not, there is. Governments responsibilities to people as a very basic should be to prevent war in the first place.
On formal agreements, they're fine Odyssey06 when they suit the narrative and not so when they don't. Are you denying that the US provided assurances that there would be no expansion into eastern europe? Answer that before we go any further.
Secondly, you think if tomorrow, Russia got together with Mexico and decided to put in various weaponry that there wouldn't be a problem? We already know the answer to that because on that occasion, it put us on the brink of nuclear war. It's double standards.

The claims about bioweapons in ukraine are without foundation. You have nothing to substantiate them.
The articles explain what the labs are doing. There are not developing bioweapons. There is no article that will satisfy you as you have now locked in on a conspiracy theory and refuse any evidence to the contrary, despite having no actual evidence in support of bioweapons labs!
And I repeat, you posted all this here and only when challenged on this thread did you subject the claims to any scrutiny!
Not much scrutiny really seeing as any article provided explaining what the labs do and why they are not bioweapons you dismiss.
Provide some actual evidence of bioweapons labs or stop peddling fake news.
You don't have any evidence so instead your resort to disinformation and muddying the waters about he said she said.
I have linked to articles from reputable media sites explaining why the claims are fake news.
It is your claim about bioweapons, is is up to your to substantiate why it isn't fake news.
Nobody reading this thread is buying what you are selling.

The Guardian article I linked re: verbal assurances explains the situation, which is why I linked to it.
A signed agreement between the countries \ parties that occured after the verbal assurances, signed agreements which occurred over 20 years ago. Something which obviously trumps verbal assurances given at an earlier point in time.
But hey, that doesn't matter, because you just dodge that by saying they are fine when they suit the narrative!
So the verbal assurances are irrelevent. Whether they were or were not given it would not change anything today.

But remind me, where in the agreements between NATO, Ukraine and Russia does it say Ukraine cannot join NATO?
If it is such a red line for Russia.

Russia wouldn't get together with Mexico because the US hasn't recently invaded Mexico multiple times in the last decade and so hasn't driven its neutral neighbour into looking for defensive alliances.
You are referencing something that happened in the 1960s in Cuba. Cuba is still there, not nuked.
Kalingrad is there beside NATO capitals, with nuclear missiles.

 

[Firefly]

I'm not. What I am doing is going out of my way to get it across to you that bias exists in all media - and that bias will go up the way if said media is under the direct control of someone or beholden to them financially in order to exist.

Yes, and the inferrence here is that we don't need to consider this any further - give the US free license to do whatever they want, disregard what they might have stoked back in 2014, disregard their expansionist policies via NATO, disregard Hunter Biden's biolabs, disregard everything and lose all ability to look at this thing objectively. That seems to me to be what everyone is going on with here.

I think you're too far gone, old friend. As I've said before, it may not be perfect, but I thank my lucky stars I live many miles west of Russian influence

 

[Firefly]

Time and time again within this thread - post after post.

Right

 

[tecate]

@odyssey06 : There are a couple of outstanding matters before we go any further - queries that remain unanswered:
1. Address the WaPo article. Were lies told or not? Is this article from the WaPo 'fake news'.
2. Was the US meddling in Ukraine in 2014?
3. Did the US give assurances repeatedly that there would be no expansion of NATO into eastern Europe?

Answer those and we can continue.

I think you're too far gone, old friend. As I've said before, it may not be perfect, but I thank my lucky stars I live many miles west of Russian influence

You're missinterpreting my view. All day long I'm not down with an authoritative regime. However, we shouldn't let that allow everyone to lose complete perspective....or to hand a free license to someone to do what they want.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I have given too much time to Greenwald's crazy conspiracy theories; no way does Hilary Clinton share any of the blame for this outrage. I don't begrudge @tecate the little tease.
So shifting tack, I just wonder why Russia/Putin have launched what looks like a wholly unprovoked attack. Ukraine was never, ever going to be a military threat to Russia. But I think I see it in the economy, stupid. It is not membership of NATO that worries the Olies it is membership of the EU. These are some relevant GDP per capita figures.
Russia 11,654
Latvia 21,489
Lithuania 22,412
Estonia 29,735
Ireland 102,394
EU 44,303
Unless you are an Olie, if you live in Russia you live in a basket case economy. IMHO the Soviet Union actually fell apart because the economic model just didn't come near that of its Cold War opposites, they simply couldn't afford to keep their empire. The Olies fear that eventually modern day Russia will collapse from within for similar economic reasons. A successful Ukraine would be the nail in the coffin.

 

[tecate]

Duke, I disagree. Russia has a rubbish economy and I believe that's not going to change any day soon. However, they occupy a giant land mass - within which exists all manner of natural resources. They'll continue to exist off the back of those resources for many years to come.
How would piling in to Ukraine change their economy anyway? Their economy is a basket case as they're not a fully open economy and they're simply not at the races in terms of competing internationally.

 

[odyssey06]

@odyssey06 : There are a couple of outstanding matters before we go any further - queries that remain unanswered:
1. Address the WaPo article. Were lies told or not? Is this article from the WaPo 'fake news'.
2. Was the US meddling in Ukraine in 2014?
3. Did the US give assurances repeatedly that there would be no expansion of NATO into eastern Europe?

Answer those and we can continue

Rubbish. I reject your trap. Pointless continuing with someone who deals in muddying the waters, red herrings and sideshows and nothing more. They establish nothing.

These are the points that matters not your sideshow questions.

Your claims about bioweapons have been shown to be fake news by reputable media outlets. The big lie is there are bioweapons labs in ukraine funded by US to develop weapons.

The invasion of Ukraine is a real invasion.

The written agreements between NATO Russia and Ukraine are a matter of public record. Nowhere does it state Ukraine or Poland for that matter cannot join NATO. The NATO agreement establish the principle that ex USSR / Warsaw Pact countries can join NATO.
Russia agreed to respect Ukraines territorial integrity.
These signed agreements have been violated by Russia only.
You can be sure if one of those agreements obliged Ukraine to stay neutral it would be the only thing we would hear about.

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 when Ukraine signed a treaty with the EU, after the people of Ukraine ran the Russian stooge out of town for trying to stop that deal which had democratic mandate. Alignment with the West is democratic will of Ukranian people. The Maidan revolution was Ukranian movement. The US couldnt trigger such an event even if it wanted to.